The Caller and the Mapper

[amerigoV]

I have formally and informally used a Caller in my games.

Formally - I ran an on-line Expedition to Castle Greyhawk game. I found the caller to be very helpful in keeping all the players engaged. It was easier for another player to ensure all the other players were engaged during exploration than for me to juggle that in with everything else, including making the technology work, etc.

Informally - I am running a Savage Worlds 50 Fathoms game. The PCs run a ship, and thus there is a captain, first mate, etc. I look to the player of the captain at times when decisions/what to do would naturally flow from him. The player does solicit input from the other players and then gives the orders. Here I look to that player as part leader and part caller.

Some of the other Savage Worlds settings are military in nature, so in those settings I look to the PC in charge for orders when I run them (usually as one-shots/at conventions). Even one of the fantasy pregens I have for convention play is a Savage World's version of the 4e Warlord. If that PC is in the group, I look to them as part Caller and part Leader.

Overall, I think its a concept that should not die out. It keeps the players engaged more and responsive to each other instead of a bunch of murder hobos (perhaps that makes them more of a Shanty of MurderHobos.). Also, it allows the players to manage the game their way as a group. Let face it, we have all been in groups where there is one player that just has to push the red, glowing button. Without the caller, that player just gets to blurt out "I press the button" over and over again. Fun for me as the GM, but probably not so much for the other players. In reality, that little quirk would get reined in pretty quickly by a group (ie, they still let them touch the button, but only after the group gets ready for what might happen).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Some things have always remained the same in D&D. There are always fighters, magic-users, thieves, and clerics. Everyone always has the six ability scores. But exploratory focus of the game when I first started playing has largely fallen by the wayside. Forget callers and mappers, people don't even want to keep track of light-sources and simple encumbrance. So, on the those rare times when I'm inclined to feel sad about modern D&D, it's mostly along those lines. It is a major disconnect between myself and players who've started since the late-90s. In the 80s and early 90s, whether one preferred D&D or AD&D, whichever of the many diverse playstyles one might have settled into, the great many D&D players shared the common experiences of playing B2 and/or hating Bargle, the experience of mapping, and a good chance of having used callers.

That most post-2000 players don't have those shared experiences is not a knock on them or even on post-2000 editions. It just makes me feel old.

When the types of activities the game rewards change dramatically, you get a very different game. I still enjoy exploration style too. That is why I still play editions best suited for such play.

 

[Iosue]

Yes, you are old!

I'm 37*. I'm not old! /dennis

*Actually 38, but I feel his pain these days.

The role of the caller is a particularly interesting one as it also derives from the days when there could be very large groups playing the game. When you have 15-20 players, having someone to wrangle them all so the DM doesn't get overwhelmed is tremendously important. There are certainly times today when you've got a group of five or six players that behave like a group of squabbling cats that it would be very advantageous to use the Caller again. I have considered it at times.

I have found a caller to make a significant difference in a group as small as four. And it wasn't because they were especially squabbly. It just seemed to bring the group together as a team, and kept things running smoothly. And the minute we didn't have a caller, we ran into "Wait, I don't think I'm in the room. I'm back here..." and "Okay, so you head down the passage..." "No, wait, I still want to check this thing out."

The role of the mapper is a very specialist one which really shines when you're running a megadungeon - lots of windy passages, confusing layouts and (especially) secret rooms. With the move away from large dungeons to a more story-orientated (small) dungeon layout, it's not so important. It's interesting the change of focus when the DM draws the map himself. One drawback we've found with the mapper (which I have in my ongoing AD&D game) is that the game can become a dialogue between the mapper and the DM without the other players being involved. Once again, it's a matter of balance.

I like having at least two mappers. Also, I've used dry-erase boards or maps to quickly draw the shape of a room to keep the map-making as quick and easy as possible.

This should be revolutionary. And it will also likely not appear in D&D 5e.

I do not have much hope. I just figure that with the return of turn-based exploration rules to the game, the DMG or some online stuff may include advice on using this style of play.

Why the heck not? Do I want PCs controlling the outcome of my story? No! Do I want them taking care of some logistics so I don't have to wipe their diapers? Yes please!

I absolutely want the PCs controlling the outcome of the story. It's their story. This is how I imagine myself as a DM.

I have played D&D (B/X, AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D, 4e) with quite a few different people since the early 80s. I've done plenty of mapping (or seen it done) but have never encountered the use of a caller, or had it suggested by another participant that we should use one. I think the caller really went out of fashion very quickly (especially, as @MerricB notes, because many groups weren't all that big).

I think there are a number of reasons for the caller going out of fashion. Group size may have played a part, but I suspect it was mostly the weakening of turn-based exploration. As more and more people simply eschewed turns in favor of simply describing movement from room to room, and encounter to encounter, the need for a caller went by the wayside.

The same experience, here. Even with a group of some 10 not overly disciplined players in AD&D 1e we didn't use a caller. Even today I can't see any sense in this role. It would make the game even slower, as the step of telling the caller and the caller telling pretty much the same contents to the DM should take more time. And the DM being free to concentrate on his tasks and notes would be pretty hard, when a dozen people are discussing their tacticts and precedures in the same room. Oh, and don't forget the players asking the DM for details.

None of that has been my experience. Typically, I need a few moments to view notes and other tasks, and doing that while the players are huddling and making their plans takes out a lot of dead time. Even if I don't have much to do, hearing players tell the caller their plans before the caller "commits" by telling me allows me to prepare the dice/rolls/rules/monsters that will be needed ahead of time. Then I can address their actions in a quick and orderly matter. Thief's going to sneak down the hall...okay, better get out my d10s and find the statblock for the shrieker...fighter's listening at the door, so here's my d6, and here are my notes for what's on the other side of the door...wizard's holding the light near the fighter, okay, I'll go ahead and note one turn's passed for their lantern...and cleric is looking down the opposite hall, and it's about time for a wandering monster check...no monster. The caller "commits" the party to their actions for that turn, and then I just go ahead. "Okay, your lantern has about an hour's oil left. Cleric, you don't see or hear anything coming down the hall; (rolls 2 on d6) fighter, you hear some scuffling sounds on the other side of the door; (rolls hide in shadow, fails, rolls move silently, success) Thief you creep down the hall, not making a sound, (rolls surprise for shrieker and thief) and you hear a slight squeak above you. Looking up, you see a shrieker, seeming to slumber. It doesn't seem to have noticed you."

And if they change actions before the caller "commits", no time is wasted by me getting something ready -- I can simply go with the flow.

Wait, so OP is saying that PCs should do something beyond running one, single character?

I am not sure if there is irony here?

The OP says nothing about running multiple characters & it would hardly be revolutionary being a feature of quite a bit of AD&D play & also of Ars Magica from 20 years ago.
It's not something I care for as I like to inhabit one character & that is hard enough without trying to be 2 people.

I believe he's not suggesting multiple characters, but rather the players having some roles in the game in addition to simply playing their character.

As to logistics well I am not interested in bean counting in a game I want derring do, action, drama & funny dialogue.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, IMXP the bean counting can even lead to derring do, action, drama & funny dialogue.

As to the original topic I have never seen a caller in 35 years. Mapping used to be common when exploration in the literal sense was more of a feature of the game. It was something I sometimes enjoyed, last in a 1e module run in 3.5, but that was very much a 2 player puzzle game played by myself & the DM. The whole idea of a caller seems to promote this with some players being more important than others.

That's an issue of execution rather than the idea itself. The caller has no greater importance than the quartermaster or the mapper. They simply process and relay certain information. But it's not for all games. I think it's pretty much best suited for the turn-based dungeon and hex crawl. If the game doesn't really make use of such turns, simply moving from encounter to encounter, then a "caller" is entirely superfluous, since they have very limited utility at the round-based encounter level.

I am not very excited by the whole exploration pillar. I did however realise that the games I run can be very combat light & hve strethes where players are not interacting (with other characters) so I guess this would be exploration. Planning robberies, organising banquets, fixing livestock competitions & the like do not seem to happily fit under the title exploration.

For me, the excitement is less about the specific rules that they've released in the playtest so far, but the fact that such rules are there in the first place, and may be expanded on in the DMG, or may lead to having more labyrinthine dungeons/hexmaps ripe for exploring. I can always simply import turn-based exploration from B/X to any edition. It's less the actual rules than the hope that the kind of play will again be supported.

 

[pemerton]

I have found a caller to make a significant difference in a group as small as four. And it wasn't because they were especially squabbly. It just seemed to bring the group together as a team, and kept things running smoothly.

<snip>

I think there are a number of reasons for the caller going out of fashion. Group size may have played a part, but I suspect it was mostly the weakening of turn-based exploration.

<snip>

Even if I don't have much to do, hearing players tell the caller their plans before the caller "commits" by telling me allows me to prepare the dice/rolls/rules/monsters that will be needed ahead of time. Then I can address their actions in a quick and orderly matter.

I have not done very much turn-based exploration since my earliest playing days. Even then, it tended to be the turn as a measure of time rather than the turn as a unit of play. So the PCs would walk down a corridor, mapping it, and I would count of the turns, but it wasn't in the form of "declare one action per PC per turn". That would fit with your hypothesis about the lack of felt need for a caller.

On the topic of player planning: When my players are planning I pay attention, and frequently get involved (eg to egg them on one way or another, whether by encouragement or (gentle) mockery; perhaps to remind them of some salient backstory that they seem to have forgotten; etc). If the plans that are being hatched seem complex or potentially contradictory, I will clarify who is doing what before proceding to try and resolve the declared actions. There is no single player who is in charge of this mediation process - it's a whole group thing.

 

[Iosue]

I have not done very much turn-based exploration since my earliest playing days. Even then, it tended to be the turn as a measure of time rather than the turn as a unit of play. So the PCs would walk down a corridor, mapping it, and I would count of the turns, but it wasn't in the form of "declare one action per PC per turn". That would fit with your hypothesis about the lack of felt need for a caller.

Yup, just what I was thinking of. Also, though I don't know if this was true for you in particular, but I suspect a lot of folks got involved with RPGs through established groups, which likely had a veteran DM and their own group dynamics that made a caller unnecessary. Myself, OTOH, I was introduced to the game playing a solo game (player-and-DM), after which I borrowed the rules, read them, and then got my sisters, brother, and best friend involved. Since the rules called for a mapper and caller, we naturally followed suit. Possibly why I'm one of the few mid-80s Caller Experienced players.

On the topic of player planning: When my players are planning I pay attention, and frequently get involved (eg to egg them on one way or another, whether by encouragement or (gentle) mockery; perhaps to remind them of some salient backstory that they seem to have forgotten; etc). If the plans that are being hatched seem complex or potentially contradictory, I will clarify who is doing what before proceding to try and resolve the declared actions. There is no single player who is in charge of this mediation process - it's a whole group thing.

Hehe. You and I have the exact opposite approach. At least when I'm playing B/X. My goal is turn gargoyle. If the game is in "turn mode", I try not to speak unless spoken to. My job is simply to smoothly and accurately relate to the players what their characters perceive. In an encounter, if I'm actually playing a role, then the funny voices come out. In a combat, I'm pure referee -- making sure the playing field is clear, adjudicating corner cases, announcing results, keeping the flow of play moving.

I have found that if I gargoyle up, the caller does NOT take charge. All players feel free to ask me for clarifications. They talk to each other without one person taking charge. If a "leader" does appear, it's generally due more to outside-the-game social dynamics than the fact that someone is the caller. We rotate the caller, so often "leaders" and "callers" are two different people. I suppose if people are in groups where those "natural leaders" tend to take the caller role, then there might be a feeling of the caller taking too large a roll in the game. But truly in my XP, the caller is just a relater of a certain kind of information in certain modes of the game, no more and no less. I'd have to play with more diverse groups to really be sure, but I suspect that rotating caller duties might even mitigate a lot of that "natural leader" stuff.

 

[pemerton]

I was introduced to the game playing a solo game (player-and-DM), after which I borrowed the rules, read them, and then got my sisters, brother, and best friend involved.

I learned to play from the Moldvay Basic rulebook. When I go upstairs after posting this message I'll see what it says about the role of the caller! But when I first played it was with small groups (eg my brother and a friend or two) so a caller may have seemed redundant. (And perhaps unclear in function.) I remember reading, early on, the Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" (probably better known to those whose cultural sphere is more in the English than US orbit, but if you don't know it apparently it's cheap used on Amazon, and worth a look). As far as I remember it recommended dispensing with the caller. But it also didn't emphasis the turn as a unit of play (only a unit of time).

Mapping, on the other hand, we were used to from playing Fighting Fantasy books.

At least when I'm playing B/X. My goal is turn gargoyle. If the game is in "turn mode", I try not to speak unless spoken to.

Even if I tried I think I would fail.

Back when I was a bit more of a free agent (as a uni student) I used to play in a wider range of groups and go to one of the annual Melbourne conventions. One of my first convention experiences, that had a big impact on me, was playing a freeform Cthulhu Dreamlands game. There was basically no need for action resolution - because whatever we did happened - so the play was all about the interpersonal dynamics: the PCs had been written up (in the usual con style) so that we had conflicting agendas, natural alliances and instabilities, etc.

The GM's main job, therefore, besides doing the standard framing stuff, was to walk around from player to player or small group to small group and play the "devil" on our shoulders, destabilising things just at the point that we might be about to reach an agreement, and revving us up if we were getting slack or not pushing hard enough for our PC's agenda.

This particular GM was excellent at that. I don't think I'm as good, but it's what I try to do. Remind the players of the stakes. Remind them of the backstory that they care about. Keep up the pressure and the energy, so that when eventually they make a decision and commit themselves they're really committing themselves.

 

[pemerton]

If a "leader" does appear, it's generally due more to outside-the-game social dynamics than the fact that someone is the caller.

<snip>

I suspect that rotating caller duties might even mitigate a lot of that "natural leader" stuff.

My group used to have two rather clear leaders (which could cause problems when they clashed! but they were close friends - leader A and I were the groosmen at leader B's wedding). But they now both live in London. Another player - oddly enough, the least experienced (ie started in the late 90s as a 30+ year old when I roped him in, whereas everone else started in the early 80s Moldvay Basic era), has emerged as the closest to a group leader. He does the heaviest lifting in terms of organising sessions, coordinating people's timetables, strongarming people into hosting etc. And he probably has the single biggest share of influence on the choices the party makes as a whole, but is by no means dominant and doesn't always get his way.

 

[Umbran]

Despite popular misconception, the caller never did this during combat. It was a turn-based role, not a round-based role.

In my experience, this varied from table to table, or game to game. Some used a caller only outside combat, others used one during combat, others used them at both times.

I've tended to move away from running a game where absolute detail of positioning matters much, and this largely alleviates the need for a mapper.

 

[Umbran]

Hehe. You and I have the exact opposite approach. At least when I'm playing B/X. My goal is turn gargoyle. If the game is in "turn mode", I try not to speak unless spoken to. My job is simply to smoothly and accurately relate to the players what their characters perceive. In an encounter, if I'm actually playing a role, then the funny voices come out. In a combat, I'm pure referee -- making sure the playing field is clear, adjudicating corner cases, announcing results, keeping the flow of play moving.

The issue I find with turning "gargoyle" is that while the characters live in the world 24/7 (or 32/8, depending on your game-world clock and calendar), the player lives in it a few hours at a time, every week or two, and views it only through interactions with the GM - that's a pretty narrow window. The PCs should have a ton of background information and intuition about how things work that the players generally lack.

It is the GM's job to widen that window, so that the PCs are making informed decisions. If and when the Players are walking down a road that the GM knows is kind of silly, and that runs contrary to what the PCs would know, I think the GM should probably offer that information, rather than wait for the PCs to specifically ask for it.

Case in point: I ran the second session of a new Shadowrun game last night. The first half of the run was stealing a widget. The second half was getting hold of the person who knows how the widget works. This latter, to a person of the real, modern world, amounts to kidnapping. A couple of my players balked at the ethics, even though in the game world, "corporate extractions" are a pretty common form of run.

So, it was important for me to remind the players of this - not that I get to make choices for them, not that they *must* take the hook I've provided (I had two different backup plans), but that in the rest of the world, this wasn't considered that big a deal. They can make the choice to not do extractions, if they want - but they should make that decision knowing the context in which it was relevant, rather than make it, and then find out later on that they're running against the grain without knowing it.

Similarly, for example, the party tech-heads should know a lot about common security systems. If the team starts making a plan that runs contrary to the knowledge the PCs would have, the GM should remind them, rather than allow them to make a crappy plan, and they gripe that the GM didn't give them enough information to make a good plan.

 

[GMMichael]

I... am guessing you don't have kids or friends with kids... if you're "wiping diapers", you're doing it entirely wrong.

The reusable kind. Disposables are so...20th century.

I am not sure if there is irony here?

Sorry, forgot the irony tag.

Did you really say you do not want the PCs controlling the outcome of your story? Are they merely along to spectate as you show us you great unpublished novelist skills?
Again this is a style of DMing/game structure I detest. PCs need to have agency.

I absolutely want the PCs controlling the outcome of the story. It's their story. This is how I imagine myself as a DM.

C'mon gang. "Controlling" and "affecting" are two different things.